1. Q3. Synchronisation January 21st 2014 – Latin American Regional Workshop on Joint Programming 1.National cycles Alignment with JP Political cycle to be taken into account -> after elections, the new Gov. might come with a new Dev.plan (Point of syncronisation) NO SYNCRONIZATION = NO JP Yes syncronization, but positively influence in the National Dev. Agenda Do partner countries ALL have significant cycles to align to? If national dev.plan is lacking, base on other existing documents Syncronisation: with partner countries / among ourselves? Syncronize among ourselves: focus on the added value we can bring as a whole Positive effects of syncronization may help graduated implementation (?) What if a MS does not participate in JP? Stick to minimum if som MS reluctant to support/enter int specific intervention area

2. Budget cycle? De-link JP document / funds - Indicative envelop Syncronisation depends on budget planning of each MS Need to establish a Roadmap, with specific objectives Establish a facilitating group with a small number of MS + EU Delegation to draft the Roadmap / other JP documents Taking advantage of previous joint interventions giving way to best practices Clearly settle common milestones (joint response, joint analysis...) + the decisions taking systems (preferably at field level, jointly between MS and EUD

3. Syncronisation vs flexibility Flexibility of ourselves (each institution) Contradictions within EU (1 MIP or 2 MIPs): EU Syncronisation Rolling cycles Encourage flexibility on the cooperation implementation Find acceptable modalities of work with your HQ (eg. Regarding DoL) Monitoring implementation (methodology) Lead time: 2-3 years to get national speed 2. Flexibility

4. Annual review strategy Regular information sharing Transparency in the priorities agenda Give phasing in time (2-3 years) to adapt to cycles Transition period useful for each EU donnor to be in a position to do JP Syncronsization on A)MS side: Extention or shortening up of the existing programming cycle B)EU side: Splitting the MIPs to syncronize with Government 3. Efforts made by MS to adapt their bilateral programming to the national cycle Programming vs fulfilment Keep political support from MS capitals to the process Narrowing the goals of each national policy Positive effects -> opportunity for concrete cooperation in projects Transition period useful for each EU donnor to be in a position to do JP Phases of entry: EU3, EU5, EU6